tv Forbes on Fox FOX Business June 19, 2016 3:00am-3:31am EDT
about this britain stuff. we got your back. cost of freedom continues with forbes on fox. this is the place you want to be, fox for business. forget propaganda for future attacks. terrorists now using social media even during their attacks. this week, facebook agreeing to help authorities after the orlando nightclub shooter made disturbing postings in the middle of his ram page as a terror in france caught live streaming on facebook while killing a police officer and his wife. now, some are demanding social media companies step up to help take these terrorists down, but is that their job? hi, everybody. i'm elizabeth mcdonald. welcome to forbes on fox. rich carl guard, mike, sabrina
schaffer. rich sh here's what's going on. it's not just these attacks. terrorists are also going to social media, we've seen them do that in san bernardino. here in queen, new york. in copenhagen, sydney, ottawa. also in oklahoma. so, should social media companies do more to help fight terror? >> first, let me express my condolences to the family and friends of those killed or maimed in the shooting. the answer is no. it's impossible. facebook has 1.6 billion users per day. that would be trying to find a needle in hey stack. that is not their job. if it's anyone, it should be the national security agency or perhaps darpa using advances and predictive analytics and big data the really come up with solution, but it's not facebook's job. >> here's the thing. we've got out there in the private sector, al a gor it ms being developed to stop
terrorism from going to facebook. also have social media stopping somehow at the front door, child pornographers who have to be reported to law enforcement by social media if they're using those sites from child pornography. >> you're right. and i'm going to have to respectfully disagree with rich. rich, you said yourself, big data is the key. we can't get it unless we are collaborating with these social media sites, so we need to have this be a process where both sides are w working together. i covered the olympics in china. i videotaped a little bit of a baseball game and put it up on u youtube. immediately, it was taken down. a lot of these things can be happening and we can stop it in real time. >> immediately taken down. what do you think? >> i don't think so. these are businesses, they're not terrorist fighters. i'll point out thankfully, terrorists attacks are all too rare, so what you'd have is social media companies creating all sorts of false alarms that
would have nothing to do with stopping terrorism, but that would put them at odds with our customers while rushing them towards -- it's a very bad idea. >> but mark, i hear what john is saying. rare, but pretty def tating and they're going to social media. not just facebook. it's also twitter, instagram, tumbler and youtube. they're using social media even for their own battle plans to give order to terrorists to conduct other attacks. what do you think? >> well, i think this assumes that google and the likes of other social immediamedia could something to what the government is already able to do. we only know a smidgen of what the agencies are able to do. now, working voluntarily with the government. that's one thing, but requiring these different private businesses to work with the government, i don't see how that would be acceptable and i don't know what it would add. look at the capabilities of what
we're able to collect just from the nsa. >> would have prevented the attacks. if those were so amazing, why don't we stop? >> i think -- >> hang on, let's bring michael in to this now. you know, the phone companies we've known for some time have been working with law enforcement. called data mining. basically to catch trends. do you think social media companies should be doing that, too, like the phone companies? >> what bother message is that we're taking the responsibility of going of isis and hifting it from the federal government to private companies. the president of the united states isn't serious about going after isis. how can can we then make private companies serious? what we should be focusing on is making it tougher for the terrorists to get through the border instead of this open border policy and bombing the heck out of isis strongholds. scapegoating private companies
is the wrong way to go. >> let's bring in sabrina. isn't it a brand reputation thing? these guys like to say we operate a virtual town square. but there are cops stopping all sorts of problems. they don't have that. they can't really say they're a virtual town square then, right? >> not exactly. i think the big thing is, first of all, we want these people to stay visible. we want them to quuz these social media platforms because it helps us to track them and follow them and know their next steps. the more we try to clamp down on that, one, it's going push them to use sites they build and also it's a distraction from the bigger thing that might help, the human component. the one thing we know that could have stopped this horrible attack in orlando is a person namely one of his first two wives, who could have said something, who said you know, i think something is going to happen tonight, but she didn't say anything.
i worry that we are so focused on trying to blame it on cell phones or social media, that we miss that human component that is so essential. >> here's the thing. we're going to take this to carrie. we know that the fbi and law enforcement have been told under the obama administration to dial back on the islamic angle of these terrorist probes, but setting that aside, is there a brand reputation risk here for the social media companies if you let these guys use your site sns. >> i think it is and i have to disagree. mike, we are very pro free market on this show to say that the private markets can't do a better job than the federal government, i think they should be working together. you mentioned the border, these guys were home grown. they were born in america. in queens. so, you know, i think that we need to be working in tandem. i think holding a social media company is is a very different conversation. >> you can have the social media companies gather all the data
you want. but if the federal government isn't leading the charge, it's not going to matter. >> we need more from the president. >> let's get rich's reaction to facebook's statement on this. saying quote, terrorists and acts of terrorism have no place on facebook. when ever a terrorist contact is reported, we remove it as quickly as possible. we treat takedown requests by law enforcement with the highest urgency. rich, this is about stopping them at the front door though, right? >> yeah, again, i would point out that facebook has 1.6 billion daily visitors. carrie used the example of something she posted in china being taken down immediately, but china has hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who do, who monitor these fellow citizens. >> it happens here in the u.s. i have friends who post on youtube in the u.s. music violating a copyright and
immediately, it's taken down. >> can we just get honest here for a second? it's not abouting them. these people are murderers. the one thing that might have topped them if more people were armed. all this other stuff is fot going to work. it's a need until the hey stack. >> go ahead, mark. >> we're already monitoring this. the fbi and nsa are on these sites. they have people on these sites. it isn't a matter of information collection. it's matter of action and that's really comes up to the government of what action it's going to take, so it doesn't mean we don't have access to this. why should we take those down immediately. we want to follow the trail and find where it goes. >> to mark. >> exactly with mark. i think that this is something that's so important and the cato institute has pointed this out. that we want these people to stay public. when they go underground and create these cells, that's when
things are much more dangerous. i think we want to encourage people to be online, promoting these horrible deeds that we find repulsive so we can do a better job at law enforcement and take them down. >> let's not push it off on the social media sites. >> okay. a great debate. thank you, guys. up next, the white house urging to stop obama care premium spikes from daylight.
now back to forbes on fox. obama care premiums set to spike up. now, the white house scrambling to tamp them down. an independent study showing a double digit hike in freempremi coming next year, so the white house urging states to do whatever they can to stop that low. that includes doling out $22 million. mike, you warned about this. what do you thin fraud. ber nay madoff went to prison for doing the same thing with
his stock investors. unfortunately, obama and hillary clinton want to use stuff like this to give the government more power and control over our health care, what we need to do is eliminate obama care and start all over. >> what do you think in. >> thanks for having me, liz. i think that you know, this won't really have any kind of meaningful impact. i think there are a lot more structural impacts at play. i'm really, the government and taxpayer will ultimately bear most of these costs and rising premiums. i think we have seen these types of warnings in recent years. add to the fact that united health care, the nation's largest insurance company announceded they're going to be leaving the exchanges. i think all these signs point to instability in the health insurance premiums and i think it just points to the need for reform. sfwl that's a good point.
here's what's going on. the $22 million is coming from the administration to and you know this, to the state review board. and the state review boards are the ones who say the health insurer, no rate increases. they have the power to stop it. this seems like top down stuff come frg the white house. that do you think? >> tink white house is trying repair this. i think there's some real flaws with the exchanges, but going back to mike's point, you have to put this into perspective. it's not a fraud. we had 47 million people who had no insurance. in 2013. now, we have 17 million people even with people having dropped out of the program, who have insurance. and yes, these premiums are way too high and there are some flaws, but mike seems to suggest we should just say forget it, you don't have insurance, go live under a bridge. this is a problem i think it's a net gain, but yes, it is a problem.
we have to come up with what the, how to solve this cost problem and how to solve this exchange problem. we have people now insured who were not. >> i hear you. >> well, no, look, the problem is that washington had a problem with meddling. it's like an addiction. the more they meddle, the farther down the rabbit hole we fall as consumers, so right now, we're seeing for instance that premiums are going up. another unintended consequence of their meddling. they have this overtieing stipulation, which means businesses are going to be forced to be paying higher wages, they're going to cut in other places, which we're seeing is is going to end up being in the health care benefits, so people are going to be having higher premiums and this is just an example of washington to get out of the business of health care. >> john, here's what's going on. that 22 million is going to be coming down to the states and the premium announcements meaning the double digit premium spikes in obama care premium costs, that could come in november. right before the election. is this an attempt by the white house to tamp down a political
backlash around a presidential election? >> well, you know, in trying to sell obama care in the first place, the administration was trying to convince us that one plus one equals a thousand, but what we're seeing here clearly is that markets always reflect reality. they promised a lot for nothing. markets are saying that's not true. the obama administration wants to hide reality. >> let's bring rich in here. administration trying to hide the reality. is the administration, the white house trying to hide the true cost of obama care, rich? >> well, they were doing that from the very beginning. don't forget that jonathan gruber, the m.i.t. researcher, the architect of obama care admitted the administration has to lie about the numbers in order to get this thing through congress. so, it's always been flawed. and the administration has known it. >> yeah, too rich's point, mike, jonathan gruber said the american people are too quote
stupid. to really see what's going on with obama care. what do you think? >> and despite what mark says, my buddy, i think takes me a little too evil. i don't want people sleeping under bridges. we could have covered the cost of people that don't have insurance without forcing people like me to buy you know, tanning salon insurance or insurance for when i get pregnant. >> but we haven't and the fact is that the private sector has failed, so we have the public sector. >> mark, you're making the private sector solve the problem. >> mark, i'm sorry for interrupting, but you're wrong. we did not have a free market prior to obama care. it was far from a free market. more regulated. >> right, i think mark agrees with that because he understands that medicare and medicare was was health insurance market already. but john heartily, go ahead. you have the final word. >> well, i think that we need some sort of kind of performa--
see if these premium increases continue in the next few years. in 2018, we'll have the cadillac tax come in, which is supposed to off set the fact that employer sponsored insurance is tax subsidized. i think there's a lot f swresing things happen in consolidation, causing prices to rise. at the end of the day, we need a reform plan that increases competition. i think that premium support in the plan brought forth by paul ryan would do that. >> welcome aboard again. knocked it out of the park. thank you so much. the cashing gang getting ready to roll at the bottom of the hour. >> just days before the orlando terror attacks, dhs told employees not to use certain words like jihadist and sharia. is the administration being too pc? and is that putting all of us in danger? plus, a big dilemma for parents as we approach the big summer
wow. john, you say you rose to the fwrad grade, that's going to hurt taxpayers. >> what a surprise, government grows as a rule. in the private sector, you're rewarded for doing much more with less. it's called productivity, but in government, your grand ur grows the more you spend, the more you hire. that's why government should be local. >> john makes a great point. we're at 19 trillion going on $20 trillion in the federal deficit. the government is growing like never before. what do you think? >> yeah, i think this is a disaster and the whole premise of this report is to keep businesses operating you know as businesses usual. but when i think about how this applies to my regular life at work, i'm expected to use donor's money wisely and to be efficient and at home as a mom, i have to be responsible with the resources that we have in the schaffer family household. i never feel fully successful in either of those. but i certainly have a lot of
pressure on me to do so and no one in the government does. >> no, i know this whole team gets a plus at work. but here's the thing. these, the federal grades are tied to bonuses. federal taxpayer money goes toward government bonuses. what do you think, mark? >> obviously there's big flaws in the study. the methodology needs to be re-examined, but we need to consider that government is inherently inefficient. not made to make a profit. it takes on what the private sector won't do. police. fire. road building. things that the private sector finds no profit in, so it's unfair to judge it by private sector standards. we're always bashing on government and how bad it is, but it's inefficient by its very nature. >> but like, here's the thing. the va, the irs, all these scandals and federal government, what do you think? >> i think you're looking at the wrong things. i think the government has been very efficient under obama.
just look at how well it's ca carried out his orders. they've totally dropped border security. they've erased the name of possible terrorists from the database. the irs was very successful going after conservatives. >> jump in i disagree because that's such a diffused attitude. these are going to be on my shoulders. i'm going to have to be paying for government unions basically reermt packages. >> i met a ton of successful people in my years at forbes, noun would describe themselves as fully successful. they hold themselves to much more rigorous standards. >> coming up, the honey, we need to talk. we do? i took the trash out. i know. and thank you so much for that. i think we should get a medicare supplement insurance plan. right now? [ male announcer ] whether you're new to medicare or not,
you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. it's up to you to pay the difference. so think about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay and could really save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now. with a medicare supplement plan, you'll be able to stay with your doctor. oh, you know, i love that guy. mm-hmm. [ male announcer ] these types of plans let you visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. and there are no networks. you do your push-ups today? prepare to be amazed. [ male announcer ] don't wait. call today to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan to go the distance with you. go long.
happy father's day. >> rich? >> the vanguard mid cap index fund. they generally outperform the s&p over time. >> good choices and happy father's day. that's it for forbes on fox. thank you for watching. keep it right here. the number one business block continues with cashing in. donald trump and fellow republicans blasting the president for his refusal to utter the words, radical islamic terrorist, even after orlando and now, we're learning just days b before the tragedy, the department of homeland security urged officials to avoid use using words like jihad and sharia. why? so muslims don't get offended, but is being too pc putting us in danger? welcome to cashing in. our crew this week -- welcome, everybody. now, rick, tart with you. is the administration putting its pc push above everything else and is that making it